TheRPGSite

It occurred to me that the main thing holding back the Wokification of all media products is what we might call anthropological realism. This includes TRPGs. Film and television period pieces still grasp at casting actors who look like lovers of historical accuracy would expect them to look, e.g., all those White young men on the beach in the film Dunkirk. If this anthropological realism is ever abandoned, which is the direction we're going in, we can expect every media product to look like it was generated by Google Gemini.

Correct me if I'm wrong: Tolkien was the one who introduced anthropological realism into fantasy literature. Before that we had legends and myths and fairy tales, but the grand idea of a Secondary World complete with legendarium, songs, languages, lineages, religions (of a kind), creation myths, and verisimilar histories, didn't exist until he literally wrote the book on it.

TRPGs trace their ancestry to D&D, which was heavily influenced by Tolkien, as we all know. But, there the seeds of their destruction were sown. By making fairy tales anthropologically realistic, the stage was set for inserting Boasian anthropology and Wokism into the literature. The biological essentialism that informs fairy tales of evil dragons and goblins, the ontological reality of good and evil, and the ignorance of ecological ramifications of fantasy elements, we must count down to destruction, as the real-world, contemporary opinions of these things arrogate all gamerdom.

That is, by making our TRPG worlds as, or more, realistic at Tolkien's in their ecologies, and ontological and anthropological assumptions, we open the door to the presently fashionable political agendas on these things that end up removing their fairy tale underpinnings.

This crushes the spirit of the games. If we can't have good versus evil, or wicked categories of monsters, or sexism, or unmixed races, then we can't have fairy tales, legends, and myths that transcend anthropology and connect themselves with real-life foundational histories.

This is not to object to media products being transformed into propaganda. I'd agree that they're already always propaganda. Refusing to indoctrinate someone is indoctrinating them into neutrality, just as refusing to teach children religion is teaching them nullifidianism. The Wokists have that right: most everything reinforces one political narrative or other.

The problem is that the traditionalist European narrative is what is being effaced, and if you're like most gamers, this means that your culture is on the chopping block. White, straight, sexed-normal, Christian, phallologoic, Euro-cultural elements have to go, or be queered or race-mixed or otherwise tortured and mutilated into something other than what they are, not for the sake of improving the game, or reinforcing a healthy Western Euroculture, but in order to score political points for those who hate you--a ruined and terrible form of fiction.

Anthropological realism, now informed by Woke socio-anthropology, has become the undoing of gaming. We're at the point where many young people aren't even aware of the "damsel in distress" trope. Trained by Tolkien to cultivate our sophisticated Secondary Worlds, we lose sight of the very fairy tales, legends, and mythologies that tell us to slay the Woke dragon that seeks to eat us.

So, Tolkien giveth and Tolkien taketh away. Resisters can play in their Aral Seas or Lake Chads of traditionalist gaming, but so long as the political winds blow Woke, they're going to continue to evaporate. The nature of TRPGs as anthropologically realistic obscures the fact that the fairy tale foundations in the minds of youth have been prestidigitated away.

Saving gaming from Woke cultural desertification requires rerouting a veritable Congo river's worth of cultural assumptions, including how we look at gaming itself.

Greetings!

As I recall, the saying is "Politics is downstream from Culture." I forgot who first coined the expression.

Still, this all is absolutely a total culture war. Woke must be totally crushed and destroyed. If the Culture War cannot be won, then everything under the umbrella of "Culture" will continue to be corrupted and or destroyed. The TTRPG gaming hobby will be the least of our worries. It too though, will be corrupted and destroyed, just like every other aspect of our culture.

Tolkien is not at fault for anything. The problem is with the Marxist, Woke scum. They are the filthy, diseased rats, threatening to devour everything in society.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

QuoteThis is not to object to media products being transformed into propaganda. I'd agree that they're already always propaganda. Refusing to indoctrinate someone is indoctrinating them into neutrality, just as refusing to teach children religion is teaching them nullifidianism. The Wokists have that right: most everything reinforces one political narrative or other.

I would beg to differ on this one, and I think it's better to approach this from a Christian Apologetics angle than from politics or the history of gaming. I will try to circle back after I make my point.

There's one key difference between Atheism and Theism. If you push the Atheistic universe to it's conclusion, you must assume that logic, mathematics, and ethics are self-assembling.  If you push the Theistic universe to its logical conclusion, these could be self-assembling, but it is more consistent with the universe for them to be directly provided by God.

The problem is that since the 1930s and Godel's theorems of incompleteness, we have known that mathematics especially doesn't fit into neat self-assembling boxes. Without this, ethics and epistemology follow suit. This is why pseudoscientific ethics typically resort to non-answers like survival and reproduction and secular ethics fall apart under scrutiny. In this sense I think that it's more accurate to say that as our culture abandoned Christian ethical ideals, it lost the moral fiber to resist Marxism. Marxism also failed--it became Wokeness by switched away from economic arguments to racial and gender arguments--but because the Christian moral authority was exiled from public life and there were were no other moral authorities to call it out, Marxism evolved into Wokism.

And here we come to the rub; Christianity is getting targeted by the Woke because it retains the moral authority to call Wokism out. No one else really does.

So, no, I don't agree with the sentiment that teaching children nothing is actually teaching them nullifidianism. You either teach children functional worldviews or you don't. And if you didn't, chances are they will become Woke, not because they actually believe any of the ideas, but because the only thing which is real to them is the opinions of their peers.

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 22, 2024, 03:17:00 PMThe biological essentialism that informs fairy tales of evil dragons and goblins, the ontological reality of good and evil, and the ignorance of ecological ramifications of fantasy elements, we must count down to destruction, as the real-world, contemporary opinions of these things arrogate all gamerdom.

The difference is that nothing in Middle Earth that had its origins in the thought of Eru Ilúvatar COULD be inherently evil (aka Biological Essentialism). Not even 'Satan', aka Melkor, was evil in his beginning. The only creatures that probably were inherently evil were Ungoliant and her spawn (Shelob, etc). That means Orks were not inherently evil since there is enough evidence they were a combination of lesser Maia, Drúedain (Woses) and other Men from their very inception. This partly gets into Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth and The Tale of Adanel which explains a version of the Fall of Man, as recounted in Morgoth's Ring.

Ungoliant is one of the most mysterious of the beings in Middle Earth since she was obviously not a Maia (despite how Iron Crown Enterprises wrote her up), but more an 'Anti-Tom Bombadil', who is himself probably the living embodiment of The Music of the Ainur. Ungoliant (as the best theory to date) is the Discord of Melkor given form, but lacking a Fëa (ie - a soul).

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 22, 2024, 03:17:00 PMCorrect me if I'm wrong: Tolkien was the one who introduced anthropological realism into fantasy literature. Before that we had legends and myths and fairy tales, but the grand idea of a Secondary World complete with legendarium, songs, languages, lineages, religions (of a kind), creation myths, and verisimilar histories, didn't exist until he literally wrote the book on it.

TRPGs trace their ancestry to D&D, which was heavily influenced by Tolkien, as we all know. But, there the seeds of their destruction were sown. By making fairy tales anthropologically realistic, the stage was set for inserting Boasian anthropology and Wokism into the literature. The biological essentialism that informs fairy tales of evil dragons and goblins, the ontological reality of good and evil, and the ignorance of ecological ramifications of fantasy elements, we must count down to destruction, as the real-world, contemporary opinions of these things arrogate all gamerdom.

That is, by making our TRPG worlds as, or more, realistic at Tolkien's in their ecologies, and ontological and anthropological assumptions, we open the door to the presently fashionable political agendas on these things that end up removing their fairy tale underpinnings.

I generally avoid the world of Lit-Crit if I can, so you'll have to pardon me if I misread the terms here.

If by "anthropological realism" you mean writing fantasy as if it was history, that goes back to at least Robert E Howard. As early as the late 1920s and early 30s he was already casting his Thurian and Hyborean ages as a prospective or alternative history of prehistoric Earth. The word "Legendarium" rarely gets used for anyone other than Tolkien, but the first one in modern literature is almost certainly the Cthulhu Mythos as created by Lovecraft, Derleth, Howard etc. in the 30s.

If you mean applying that realistic approach to fairytale creature like elves, trolls and so forth, then it's a stronger attribution to Tolkien, but it's worth noting that other authors were moving in the same direction at the same time. Poul Anderson is the obvious example. Three Hearts and Three Lions (1953, expanded/republished in 1961) casts elves and dwarfs in science-fiction terms, with nebulous scientific reasons for why they are the way they are. The Broken Sword (1954) keeps more to fairytale/mythic logic, but still takes what could be argued to be a relatively realistic approach by delving into the politics and culture of elves and trolls. But even C.S. Lewis could be argued to have been moving in that direction with the way he treats creatures like fauns and dwarfs in the Narnia series. I haven't read Lord Dunsany's The King of Elfland's Daughter (1924), but from what I've heard, it's possible the approach has its roots that far back.

This is relevant, because both the 20s/30s pulp witers like Lovecraft, Howard and Derleth, and the 50s/60s ones like Poul Anderson are inspirations expressly cited by the creators of D&D. It's highly speculative, but I think it's reasonable to say that even without Tolkien's influence, D&D might have emerged in a substantially similar form to the one we actually got.

I also think it's a bit unfair to Tolkien to assert that Middle Earth is anthropologically realistic. Middle Earth is highly detailed, but its style and themes are still firmly grounded in the fairytale and mythic traditions. This is more clear in The Hobbit and The Silmarillion than it is in The Lord of the Rings, but even then it's still the case. Tolkien's background was as a professor of languages with a specialty in Anglo-Saxon literature. He famously despised allegory and was not charitable when asked about realist writers like Frank Herbert.

The development of a "realist" perspective on things like elves and orcs is I think more fairly laid at the feet of writers that followed Tolkien without understanding him. Though he doesn't use elves in his books, the best example is George R.R. Martin asking what Aragorn's tax policy is, obviously not understanding why the question is entirely irrelevant. Sadly, I have to say that Gary Gygax and Ed Greenwood are probably major contributors to this, as the needs of developing a game world require that you look at things like social organization and economics, where a novelist doesn't need to.

At the end of the day, Wokists are going to find an entry point into anything. The non-Tolkien school of fantasy novelists generally come from a more science-fiction or historical-fiction influenced background. That approach is, if anything, even easier insert a Woke crowbar into, since it has a greater implied grounding in real world logic. Absent Tolkien's influence, I think it likely that fantasy literature develops more heavily into a rationalist approach rather than a fairytale one.

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 22, 2024, 03:17:00 PMThe biological essentialism that informs fairy tales of evil dragons and goblins,

The thing that people who compare the idea of evil orcs to biological essentialism can't grasp is that fantasy worlds do not necessarily follow biological or evolutionary principles.  Things can be as they are for other reasons.  The supernatural is real and evident.  Races can be created by gods or other supernatural beings, not evolved.  Dragons didn't evolve in LotR.  They aren't biological organisms.  They were magical creatures created by Morgoth to be weapons.  Orcs weren't naturally occurring organisms.  They were twisted things made to be foot soldiers.  Biology was not a factor.     

Bearing in mind that they are censoring Dr Seuss and Roald Dahl, no, I don't really think Tolkien set us up for anything.

Quote from: yosemitemike on April 22, 2024, 09:54:41 PMOrcs weren't naturally occurring organisms.  They were twisted things made to be foot soldiers.  Biology was not a factor.

Well, no. Orks were biological. They 'multiplied after the manner of the Children of Eru' after all. Its just they were genetically manipulated Men.

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 22, 2024, 03:17:00 PMIt occurred to me that the main thing holding back the Wokification of all media products is what we might call anthropological realism. This includes TRPGs. Film and television period pieces still grasp at casting actors who look like lovers of historical accuracy would expect them to look, e.g., all those White young men on the beach in the film Dunkirk. If this anthropological realism is ever abandoned, which is the direction we're going in, we can expect every media product to look like it was generated by Google Gemini.

Correct me if I'm wrong: Tolkien was the one who introduced anthropological realism into fantasy literature. Before that we had legends and myths and fairy tales, but the grand idea of a Secondary World complete with legendarium, songs, languages, lineages, religions (of a kind), creation myths, and verisimilar histories, didn't exist until he literally wrote the book on it.

TRPGs trace their ancestry to D&D, which was heavily influenced by Tolkien, as we all know. But, there the seeds of their destruction were sown. By making fairy tales anthropologically realistic, the stage was set for inserting Boasian anthropology and Wokism into the literature. The biological essentialism that informs fairy tales of evil dragons and goblins, the ontological reality of good and evil, and the ignorance of ecological ramifications of fantasy elements, we must count down to destruction, as the real-world, contemporary opinions of these things arrogate all gamerdom.

That is, by making our TRPG worlds as, or more, realistic at Tolkien's in their ecologies, and ontological and anthropological assumptions, we open the door to the presently fashionable political agendas on these things that end up removing their fairy tale underpinnings.

This crushes the spirit of the games. If we can't have good versus evil, or wicked categories of monsters, or sexism, or unmixed races, then we can't have fairy tales, legends, and myths that transcend anthropology and connect themselves with real-life foundational histories.

This is not to object to media products being transformed into propaganda. I'd agree that they're already always propaganda. Refusing to indoctrinate someone is indoctrinating them into neutrality, just as refusing to teach children religion is teaching them nullifidianism. The Wokists have that right: most everything reinforces one political narrative or other.

The problem is that the traditionalist European narrative is what is being effaced, and if you're like most gamers, this means that your culture is on the chopping block. White, straight, sexed-normal, Christian, phallologoic, Euro-cultural elements have to go, or be queered or race-mixed or otherwise tortured and mutilated into something other than what they are, not for the sake of improving the game, or reinforcing a healthy Western Euroculture, but in order to score political points for those who hate you--a ruined and terrible form of fiction.

Anthropological realism, now informed by Woke socio-anthropology, has become the undoing of gaming. We're at the point where many young people aren't even aware of the "damsel in distress" trope. Trained by Tolkien to cultivate our sophisticated Secondary Worlds, we lose sight of the very fairy tales, legends, and mythologies that tell us to slay the Woke dragon that seeks to eat us.

So, Tolkien giveth and Tolkien taketh away. Resisters can play in their Aral Seas or Lake Chads of traditionalist gaming, but so long as the political winds blow Woke, they're going to continue to evaporate. The nature of TRPGs as anthropologically realistic obscures the fact that the fairy tale foundations in the minds of youth have been prestidigitated away.

Saving gaming from Woke cultural desertification requires rerouting a veritable Congo river's worth of cultural assumptions, including how we look at gaming itself.

Before I touch this subject, I'd like you to define "anthropological realism" because I have not been able to find a definition online.

Quote from: SHARK on April 22, 2024, 03:55:16 PMGreetings!

As I recall, the saying is "Politics is downstream from Culture." I forgot who first coined the expression.

Still, this all is absolutely a total culture war. Woke must be totally crushed and destroyed. If the Culture War cannot be won, then everything under the umbrella of "Culture" will continue to be corrupted and or destroyed. The TTRPG gaming hobby will be the least of our worries. It too though, will be corrupted and destroyed, just like every other aspect of our culture.

Tolkien is not at fault for anything. The problem is with the Marxist, Woke scum. They are the filthy, diseased rats, threatening to devour everything in society.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Greetings SHARK,

What's our basis for opposing Wokism? Is it liberal democracy/secularism/socially contracted human rights, Christianity, fascism, Neo-platonism, or what? If we lack a firm foundation, how can we save the house from the flood?

Neoplatonist1

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 22, 2024, 11:46:37 PM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 22, 2024, 03:17:00 PMIt occurred to me that the main thing holding back the Wokification of all media products is what we might call anthropological realism...

Before I touch this subject, I'd like you to define "anthropological realism" because I have not been able to find a definition online.

As ForgottenF put it above, (1) writing fantasy as if it were history, to which I'd add (2) employing races, sexes, cultures, and religions logically as derived from the inspiring mythos or cultures from which the given fantasy comes.

It doesn't make sense to have Africans in Rohan, for example. In fact it defeats the whole purpose. LotR is a European fantasy, the Rohan are an Anglo-Saxon horse culture; the other races of man are geographically and culturally peripheral.

Quote from: yosemitemike on April 22, 2024, 09:54:41 PM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 22, 2024, 03:17:00 PMThe biological essentialism that informs fairy tales of evil dragons and goblins,

The thing that people who compare the idea of evil orcs to biological essentialism can't grasp is that fantasy worlds do not necessarily follow biological or evolutionary principles.  Things can be as they are for other reasons.  The supernatural is real and evident.  Races can be created by gods or other supernatural beings, not evolved.  Dragons didn't evolve in LotR.  They aren't biological organisms.  They were magical creatures created by Morgoth to be weapons.  Orcs weren't naturally occurring organisms.  They were twisted things made to be foot soldiers.  Biology was not a factor.     

It's a good point--dragons in fairy tales have hearts, blood, and bones, but no cells or DNA, because no one in fairy tales has cells or DNA.

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 23, 2024, 12:23:34 AM

Quote from: yosemitemike on April 22, 2024, 09:54:41 PM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 22, 2024, 03:17:00 PMThe biological essentialism that informs fairy tales of evil dragons and goblins,

The thing that people who compare the idea of evil orcs to biological essentialism can't grasp is that fantasy worlds do not necessarily follow biological or evolutionary principles.  Things can be as they are for other reasons.  The supernatural is real and evident.  Races can be created by gods or other supernatural beings, not evolved.  Dragons didn't evolve in LotR.  They aren't biological organisms.  They were magical creatures created by Morgoth to be weapons.  Orcs weren't naturally occurring organisms.  They were twisted things made to be foot soldiers.  Biology was not a factor.     

It's a good point--dragons in fairy tales have hearts, blood, and bones, but no cells or DNA, because no one in fairy tales has cells or DNA.

They're also a biological impossibility. The wingspan is never anywhere near enough to lift the mass, and they couldn't possibly intake enough calories to power their fire-breath, etc.

There's a bit in Three Hearts and Three Lions where the hero blows up a dragon by causing a backdraft with its fire breath. I want to say he throws water in its mouth to produce a a steam backup or something, but it's been a while. That's what I meant by approaching fantasy creatures with science fiction logic. There's another bit where the book explains away a giant's treasure being cursed by radiation released due to the process of the giant turning to stone when it dies. That sort of thing would never fly in a pure fairy tale.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 23, 2024, 12:44:45 AMThey're also a biological impossibility. The wingspan is never anywhere near enough to lift the mass, and they couldn't possibly intake enough calories to power their fire-breath, etc.

Biologically impossible, yes, but not spiritually impossible, particularly if you've been listening to Tucker lately.

That's basically the route I took with my dragons as well, they're spirits who have chosen to take on the form of dragons because it fits their natures. They can fly and breathe fire because, to a spiritual entity, gravity and thermodynamics are more like suggestions than hard rules (the same with the square cube law).

Take it a step further and it is the virtues of the hero that can slay it; the virtuous knight or brave peasant boy can slay what even an army could not.

I reject the premise. Tolkien is just one of many in the field, often from pulp, that elevated the speculative fiction genre with a mash-up of respected classic literary forms. And respected classic literary forms rarely started out so "classic" and were often an experimentation of their own (e.g. "The Tale of Genji" breaks all sorts of classical novel conventions). Thus the development of literature is not a finite, stilted, classified corpus, but a breathing corpus of many inspirations still exploring.

RPGs is just a gaming off-shoot from this bored literati playing with literary entertainment forms old and new. And it too has birthed its own corpus of ideas and molds and breaking of said molds. This latest disestablishmentarianism (triple word score!) is naught but the cycle of disenchanted creativity trying to find breathing room upon the soil by burning the flora atop in a fit of pique. Nothing new, nothing profound, no real revolution.

So who are we rebelling against? And can these new creators create without iconoclastic rebellion? What are they then truly beyond the revolution... nothing? ;) The revolution eats all its children...

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 22, 2024, 11:58:38 PM

Quote from: SHARK on April 22, 2024, 03:55:16 PMGreetings!

As I recall, the saying is "Politics is downstream from Culture." I forgot who first coined the expression.

Still, this all is absolutely a total culture war. Woke must be totally crushed and destroyed. If the Culture War cannot be won, then everything under the umbrella of "Culture" will continue to be corrupted and or destroyed. The TTRPG gaming hobby will be the least of our worries. It too though, will be corrupted and destroyed, just like every other aspect of our culture.

Tolkien is not at fault for anything. The problem is with the Marxist, Woke scum. They are the filthy, diseased rats, threatening to devour everything in society.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Greetings SHARK,

What's our basis for opposing Wokism? Is it liberal democracy/secularism/socially contracted human rights, Christianity, fascism, Neo-platonism, or what? If we lack a firm foundation, how can we save the house from the flood?

Neoplatonist1

Greetings!

Well, my friend, I personally oppose the Woke based on two things--(1) My Christian faith; and (2) Traditional American Values.

The Woke are Marxist, evil, and traitors to our nation, our Republic, and our people.

And yes, as long as Americans are divided, distracted, and brainwashed with weakness, then the Woke Marxists will win. Americans need to unite, and become hard and fierce. Americans need to harden themselves in doing what needs to be done to heal our land, our nation, and our people.

"Voting harder" will not cleanse our great land, and make us strong. The hard times are coming, and America will need hard men to restore our nation if we are to have any kind of future. Otherwise, we will be choked in diverse rainbow jello and enslaved to a Marxist elite tyrant mommy-state.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgflip.com%2F2%2F37l08x.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=1fd4697327beb084e72d3e995b40878bef4ac9024141a764bd678aea156f6203&ipo=images)

Is Dragonball Biologically Essentialist?

Fictional world-building has been around since Plato's Atlantis. For world-building in more modern times, Lovecraft and Howard have already been mentioned. E.R.Burroughs started even earlier, with his Barsoom setting (Under the Moons of Mars, 1912). In his quest to create a historicized mythology, Tolkien was, among other things, almost certainly influenced by the Old Testament.

Quote from: Crazy_Blue_Haired_Chick on April 23, 2024, 08:21:34 AM(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgflip.com%2F2%2F37l08x.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=1fd4697327beb084e72d3e995b40878bef4ac9024141a764bd678aea156f6203&ipo=images)

Is Dragonball Biologically Essentialist?

It's been well over a decade since I watched Dragonball, and I only got partway through Z, but I think the answer is "yes and no". Yes, in that Saiyans clearly have innate qualities which are different from humans. No, in that they aren't inherently evil. If memory serves, the reason why any race is put on the good guy or bad guy team is always ascribed to their culture and upbringing, rather than their innate qualities.

If you want to go with a super-left-wing reading, you could point out that the biological females in the series are drastically weaker than the males. IIRC the androids are the only female fighters of any consequence. That would of course be a bad faith reading, but that's the kind of thing lefties do.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 23, 2024, 11:15:50 AM

Quote from: Crazy_Blue_Haired_Chick on April 23, 2024, 08:21:34 AM(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.imgflip.com%2F2%2F37l08x.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=1fd4697327beb084e72d3e995b40878bef4ac9024141a764bd678aea156f6203&ipo=images)

Is Dragonball Biologically Essentialist?

It's been well over a decade since I watched Dragonball, and I only got partway through Z, but I think the answer is "yes and no". Yes, in that Saiyans clearly have innate qualities which are different from humans. No, in that they aren't inherently evil. If memory serves, the reason why any race is put on the good guy or bad guy team is always ascribed to their culture and upbringing, rather than their innate qualities.

If you want to go with a super-left-wing reading, you could point out that the biological females in the series are drastically weaker than the males. IIRC the androids are the only female fighters of any consequence. That would of course be a bad faith reading, but that's the kind of thing lefties do.

If you wanna go full batshit crazy you could say that Zarbon and Frieza are female but being alien, they don't fit into our ideas of femaleness...but that's if you want to go full batshit crazy.

Also the Namekians reproduce asexually so calling Piccolo, Nail, Kami, Dende, or even Lord Slug male is misleading as they don't have sex in the first place.

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 22, 2024, 03:17:00 PMSaving gaming from Woke cultural desertification requires rerouting a veritable Congo river's worth of cultural assumptions, including how we look at gaming itself.

As I am wont to say whenever these sorts of situations manifest, "It's nothing a shotgun wouldn't fix." Kill all the communists and you fix 99% of the problem. Tolkien isn't to blame for anything other than being an excellent writer who just so happened to write a British-inspired myth.

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 23, 2024, 12:18:39 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 22, 2024, 11:46:37 PM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 22, 2024, 03:17:00 PMIt occurred to me that the main thing holding back the Wokification of all media products is what we might call anthropological realism...

Before I touch this subject, I'd like you to define "anthropological realism" because I have not been able to find a definition online.

As ForgottenF put it above, (1) writing fantasy as if it were history, to which I'd add (2) employing races, sexes, cultures, and religions logically as derived from the inspiring mythos or cultures from which the given fantasy comes.

It doesn't make sense to have Africans in Rohan, for example. In fact it defeats the whole purpose. LotR is a European fantasy, the Rohan are an Anglo-Saxon horse culture; the other races of man are geographically and culturally peripheral.

OK, but doesn't that go back to before Tolkien? In Beowulf there was Grendel, and even Grendel had a mother. In it's most basic form, that is "anthropological realism" in that it is a copy of western family structure.

Actually, I think Tolkien's influence has trapped the fantasy genre in an uncreative rut where 99% of it is just Tolkien fanfiction with the serial numbers filled off. Dwarves, orcs, and elves inspired by Tolkien are everywhere in fantasy. Dark lords and heroic quests to save the world are a dime a dozen. A pseudo-medieval aesthetic inspired by Tolkien is the default.

As an old Studio C skit hilariously illustrated, the Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Harry Potter are the same story repackaged, despite having completely different aesthetics.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 23, 2024, 03:11:48 PMActually, I think Tolkien's influence has trapped the fantasy genre in an uncreative rut where 99% of it is just Tolkien fanfiction with the serial numbers filled off. Dwarves, orcs, and elves inspired by Tolkien are everywhere in fantasy. Dark lords and heroic quests to save the world are a dime a dozen. A pseudo-medieval aesthetic inspired by Tolkien is the default.

As an old Studio C skit hilariously illustrated, the Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Harry Potter are the same story repackaged, despite having completely different aesthetics.

Ehhh, no, that recognition predates Studio C by a long time.  Joseph Campbell was talking about monomyth in the seventies.  It is, in fact, one reason why modern games and media mostly suck.  Because politics comes and goes, but the human condition never changes.  And the "progressives" want to assert that there is no human condition, nor is there anything within us other than the product of culture and politics.  And that is why they fail...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 23, 2024, 03:53:14 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 23, 2024, 03:11:48 PMActually, I think Tolkien's influence has trapped the fantasy genre in an uncreative rut where 99% of it is just Tolkien fanfiction with the serial numbers filled off. Dwarves, orcs, and elves inspired by Tolkien are everywhere in fantasy. Dark lords and heroic quests to save the world are a dime a dozen. A pseudo-medieval aesthetic inspired by Tolkien is the default.

As an old Studio C skit hilariously illustrated, the Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Harry Potter are the same story repackaged, despite having completely different aesthetics.

Ehhh, no, that recognition predates Studio C by a long time.  Joseph Campbell was talking about monomyth in the seventies.  It is, in fact, one reason why modern games and media mostly suck.  Because politics comes and goes, but the human condition never changes.  And the "progressives" want to assert that there is no human condition, nor is there anything within us other than the product of culture and politics.  And that is why they fail...

Campbell invented the monomyth structure by examining various myths and stitching together originally unrelated scenes into a vaguely coherent storytelling template (https://www.dappledthings.org/deep-down-things/8796/is-the-monomyth-a-myth), but it's not actually an accurate reflection of universal human psychology or storytelling (read the ATU fairy tale index for comparison). That's not to say that humans don't have universal psychological biases, we obviously do (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk3QsGzAjKI).

My criticism is unrelated to wokeness and is a pure criticism of writers becoming increasingly uncreative and just aping Tolkien. That's been a problem even before wokeness.

Quote from: Brad on April 23, 2024, 12:35:52 PMAs I am wont to say whenever these sorts of situations manifest, "It's nothing a shotgun wouldn't fix." Kill all the communists and you fix 99% of the problem. Tolkien isn't to blame for anything other than being an excellent writer who just so happened to write a British-inspired myth.

Greetings!

Damn right, Brad! I have been saying this forever. Gradually, more and more Americans are coming around to embracing this conclusion. Still, though, there are far too many people that naively believe that somehow, it is better and good to tolerate these terrible people within our communities. As one aspect of culture after another becomes corrupted and destroyed by the Communists, people are beginning to cry and worry about it. These nice, naive sheep though seem to be too stupid to realise that it might be too late, and America is fucked. The Communists have a chance to achieve total victory because too many Americans were passive, naive, and weak. More eager to hold onto cherished fantasies from days long gone than to actually face the truth and grapple with the reality that is destroying everything that they value right in front of them.

The Communists and other PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL morons have declared that Tolkien is racist, and Misogynist. Ergo, he must also then be a Hu-White Supremacist. *Rolls eyes* I wish I was making this up, but it is very real. I've read that these Liberal morons actually have said this kind of stuff about Tolkien.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 23, 2024, 03:11:48 PMActually, I think Tolkien's influence has trapped the fantasy genre in an uncreative rut where 99% of it is just Tolkien fanfiction with the serial numbers filled off. Dwarves, orcs, and elves inspired by Tolkien are everywhere in fantasy. Dark lords and heroic quests to save the world are a dime a dozen. A pseudo-medieval aesthetic inspired by Tolkien is the default.

As an old Studio C skit hilariously illustrated, the Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Harry Potter are the same story repackaged, despite having completely different aesthetics.

Except that Frodo didn't do battle with Sauron for The Ring. Tolkien literally inverted the trope of the 'hero fighting the evil overlord'. Aragorn's rise to the position of King of the Reunited Realms of Númenor in Exile was incidental, in the grand scheme of things, to the fall of Sauron. The destruction of The Ring was absolutely divine providence instead. Frodo failed at the end, as he was always going to fail because that was the point. It was the pity that both Bilbo and Frodo had shown Gollum that enabled that last bit to happen, chiefly the curse Frodo laid upon him on the slopes of Orodruin.

Quote from: SHARK on April 22, 2024, 03:55:16 PMAs I recall, the saying is "Politics is downstream from Culture."

I believe Andrew Breitbart said that.

Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on April 23, 2024, 07:19:22 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 23, 2024, 03:11:48 PMActually, I think Tolkien's influence has trapped the fantasy genre in an uncreative rut where 99% of it is just Tolkien fanfiction with the serial numbers filled off. Dwarves, orcs, and elves inspired by Tolkien are everywhere in fantasy. Dark lords and heroic quests to save the world are a dime a dozen. A pseudo-medieval aesthetic inspired by Tolkien is the default.

As an old Studio C skit hilariously illustrated, the Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Harry Potter are the same story repackaged, despite having completely different aesthetics.

Except that Frodo didn't do battle with Sauron for The Ring. Tolkien literally inverted the trope of the 'hero fighting the evil overlord'. Aragorn's rise to the position of King of the Reunited Realms of Númenor in Exile was incidental, in the grand scheme of things, to the fall of Sauron. The destruction of The Ring was absolutely divine providence instead. Frodo failed at the end, as he was always going to fail because that was the point. It was the pity that both Bilbo and Frodo had shown Gollum that enabled that last bit to happen, chiefly the curse Frodo laid upon him on the slopes of Orodruin.

I never said Tolkien used the Hero's Journey structure invented by Campbell. I said George Lucas and J.K. Rowling copied Tolkien.


Also, Tolkien didn't invert the trope because it wasn't even invented yet. The idea of evil overlords comes from Tokien! (Yes, Christianity has Satan, but Satan whispers in the hearts of all mortals, he's not ruling the earth from a haunted castle that a group of teenage boys try to raid in an mmo expansion.)

What I remember about Tolkien is that his LOTR was meant to criticize the industrialized world, including what Tolkien experienced during WWI.

Meanwhile, I remember the Blackmoor documentary, and I think RPGing started with wargaming: they were playing tabletop Napoleonic games with movements and actions quantified using multiple factors and dice for randomizing. One of the sources was a nineteenth-century guide to wargames which they found in the uni library.

From there, some wrote a guide to medieval wargaming, and from there they started looking at the roles certain personalities played in battle, and that led to a focus on roleplaying. Maybe it was because of Tolkien that they started including fantasy elements.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 23, 2024, 04:37:01 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 23, 2024, 03:53:14 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 23, 2024, 03:11:48 PMActually, I think Tolkien's influence has trapped the fantasy genre in an uncreative rut where 99% of it is just Tolkien fanfiction with the serial numbers filled off. Dwarves, orcs, and elves inspired by Tolkien are everywhere in fantasy. Dark lords and heroic quests to save the world are a dime a dozen. A pseudo-medieval aesthetic inspired by Tolkien is the default.

As an old Studio C skit hilariously illustrated, the Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Harry Potter are the same story repackaged, despite having completely different aesthetics.

Ehhh, no, that recognition predates Studio C by a long time.  Joseph Campbell was talking about monomyth in the seventies.  It is, in fact, one reason why modern games and media mostly suck.  Because politics comes and goes, but the human condition never changes.  And the "progressives" want to assert that there is no human condition, nor is there anything within us other than the product of culture and politics.  And that is why they fail...

Campbell invented the monomyth structure by examining various myths and stitching together originally unrelated scenes into a vaguely coherent storytelling template (https://www.dappledthings.org/deep-down-things/8796/is-the-monomyth-a-myth), but it's not actually an accurate reflection of universal human psychology or storytelling (read the ATU fairy tale index for comparison). That's not to say that humans don't have universal psychological biases, we obviously do (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk3QsGzAjKI).

My criticism is unrelated to wokeness and is a pure criticism of writers becoming increasingly uncreative and just aping Tolkien. That's been a problem even before wokeness.

First, Campbell may have been the first to codify the concept, there has been a ton more scholarship that analyzes and explores the concept further.  So, despite the evidence-poor assertion of a couple of randos on the Internet (including the page you linked), Campbell's framework has been pretty useful overall.

Secondly, you've changed your argument on Tolkien several times in this thread.  First his tropes have trapped the writers that followed by establishing a pattern to be slavishly followed; then he's inventing evil overlord tropes that clearly predate him (Ming the Merciless?  There are many others...). Lucas was expressly and consciously  copying the serials of the 1930s and 40s, which predate LotR by decades.

Honestly, your whining about the lack of good writing in modern media due to Tolkien seems predicated on a cartoonishly simple generalization.  Somehow others must be copying Tolkien, and not copying who Tolkien copied.  As brilliant as he was, Tolkien was also heavily influenced by ideas that came before him, and those ideas were expressed in a lot of other media.  So perhaps they were all reacting to ideas that were much older?  Nah, they must just be copying him...

Quote from: Fheredin on April 22, 2024, 04:55:07 PM

QuoteThis is not to object to media products being transformed into propaganda. I'd agree that they're already always propaganda. Refusing to indoctrinate someone is indoctrinating them into neutrality, just as refusing to teach children religion is teaching them nullifidianism. The Wokists have that right: most everything reinforces one political narrative or other.

I would beg to differ on this one, and I think it's better to approach this from a Christian Apologetics angle than from politics or the history of gaming. I will try to circle back after I make my point.

There's one key difference between Atheism and Theism. If you push the Atheistic universe to it's conclusion, you must assume that logic, mathematics, and ethics are self-assembling.  If you push the Theistic universe to its logical conclusion, these could be self-assembling, but it is more consistent with the universe for them to be directly provided by God.

The problem is that since the 1930s and Godel's theorems of incompleteness, we have known that mathematics especially doesn't fit into neat self-assembling boxes. Without this, ethics and epistemology follow suit. This is why pseudoscientific ethics typically resort to non-answers like survival and reproduction and secular ethics fall apart under scrutiny. In this sense I think that it's more accurate to say that as our culture abandoned Christian ethical ideals, it lost the moral fiber to resist Marxism. Marxism also failed--it became Wokeness by switched away from economic arguments to racial and gender arguments--but because the Christian moral authority was exiled from public life and there were were no other moral authorities to call it out, Marxism evolved into Wokism.

And here we come to the rub; Christianity is getting targeted by the Woke because it retains the moral authority to call Wokism out. No one else really does.

So, no, I don't agree with the sentiment that teaching children nothing is actually teaching them nullifidianism. You either teach children functional worldviews or you don't. And if you didn't, chances are they will become Woke, not because they actually believe any of the ideas, but because the only thing which is real to them is the opinions of their peers.

I stand corrected. Then, my stronger point is that the mind of a political animal abhors a vacuum--something must be sucked into it.

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 23, 2024, 02:28:24 PM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 23, 2024, 12:18:39 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 22, 2024, 11:46:37 PM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 22, 2024, 03:17:00 PMIt occurred to me that the main thing holding back the Wokification of all media products is what we might call anthropological realism...

Before I touch this subject, I'd like you to define "anthropological realism" because I have not been able to find a definition online.

As ForgottenF put it above, (1) writing fantasy as if it were history, to which I'd add (2) employing races, sexes, cultures, and religions logically as derived from the inspiring mythos or cultures from which the given fantasy comes.

It doesn't make sense to have Africans in Rohan, for example. In fact it defeats the whole purpose. LotR is a European fantasy, the Rohan are an Anglo-Saxon horse culture; the other races of man are geographically and culturally peripheral.

OK, but doesn't that go back to before Tolkien? In Beowulf there was Grendel, and even Grendel had a mother. In it's most basic form, that is "anthropological realism" in that it is a copy of western family structure.

It appears so. The difference between Beowulf and LotR would then be quantitative.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 23, 2024, 03:53:14 PMEhhh, no, that recognition predates Studio C by a long time.  Joseph Campbell was talking about monomyth in the seventies.  It is, in fact, one reason why modern games and media mostly suck.  Because politics comes and goes, but the human condition never changes.  And the "progressives" want to assert that there is no human condition, nor is there anything within us other than the product of culture and politics.  And that is why they fail...

Indeed:

Marx's Theory of Man and the World (https://newdiscourses.com/2022/10/many-faces-of-marxism/)

QuoteThe world of man — state, society — as Marx had it is the social structure that he creates for himself and that he, indeed, imprisons himself within. Man creates society and embodies that creation in the State, and the society, shaped by the State, in turn creates Man. Marx called the creation of society "praxis" and the creation of Man by society "the inversion of praxis." Praxis is theory-informed activism, so activism or "the work" done in light of Marxist Theory. It is the transforming activity done by Man on the world of man. The inversion of praxis is social conditioning. The society that Man has created for himself socially conditions him almost completely deterministically. Man is limited and thus psychically incarcerated by the limitations of his social conditioning through the inversion of praxis.

Quote from: SHARK on April 23, 2024, 06:03:38 AMGreetings!

Well, my friend, I personally oppose the Woke based on two things--(1) My Christian faith; and (2) Traditional American Values.

The Woke are Marxist, evil, and traitors to our nation, our Republic, and our people.

And yes, as long as Americans are divided, distracted, and brainwashed with weakness, then the Woke Marxists will win. Americans need to unite, and become hard and fierce. Americans need to harden themselves in doing what needs to be done to heal our land, our nation, and our people.

"Voting harder" will not cleanse our great land, and make us strong. The hard times are coming, and America will need hard men to restore our nation if we are to have any kind of future. Otherwise, we will be choked in diverse rainbow jello and enslaved to a Marxist elite tyrant mommy-state.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

SHARK,

How do you square your Christian faith with the commandments, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good", and "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

How can we defend the West from evil, without violating these commandments? This paradox vexes me. What are your thoughts on it?

Neoplatonist1

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 24, 2024, 12:41:52 AM

Quote from: SHARK on April 23, 2024, 06:03:38 AMGreetings!

Well, my friend, I personally oppose the Woke based on two things--(1) My Christian faith; and (2) Traditional American Values.

The Woke are Marxist, evil, and traitors to our nation, our Republic, and our people.

And yes, as long as Americans are divided, distracted, and brainwashed with weakness, then the Woke Marxists will win. Americans need to unite, and become hard and fierce. Americans need to harden themselves in doing what needs to be done to heal our land, our nation, and our people.

"Voting harder" will not cleanse our great land, and make us strong. The hard times are coming, and America will need hard men to restore our nation if we are to have any kind of future. Otherwise, we will be choked in diverse rainbow jello and enslaved to a Marxist elite tyrant mommy-state.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

SHARK,

How do you square your Christian faith with the commandments, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good", and "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

How can we defend the West from evil, without violating these commandments? This paradox vexes me. What are your thoughts on it?

Neoplatonist1

Greetings!

Well, my friend, do not be vexed! Everything within Scripture has *context*. God does not want us to be helpless, weak, pathetic victims, just bowing down to evil and tyranny. In the New Testament, Christ commands us to when we go about into the world, to carry a sword. The disciples asked Christ, why should we go forth into the world armed, Lord? To which Christ continued, saying, for we live in an evil world. If Christ had wanted us to always be peaceful and sweet, and never do violence, then He would not have commanded us to arm ourselves.

Likewise, the Scriptures talk about being armed, and ready to defend your home and community from the wolves, from the brigand, the robber and thief.

Furthermore, the Scriptures are full of histories and stories of where righteous people rose up--and violently defended themselves, and resisted evil, wickedness, and tyranny. The Old Testament is full of this.

Perhaps, by individual temperament, a person may be so tranquil and so peaceful, as to simply be paralyzed when contemplating violence. Likewise, an individual sincerely convinced and committed to pacifism. The US government has historically acknowledged a sincere conviction of pacifism, based upon a few verses and teachings in Scripture. However, as regards a broader world view, such Scriptures and context would be a minority. There are far more examples, exhortations, and instructions for the Christian to be armed, and prepared for violence, either defending his person, his family, his home, or his community. Defending all from foreign invaders, but also from domestic evil and tyranny.

Quakers, for example, are a historic community within America that have always been committed to pacifism. I don't agree with their interpretation and application of a few Scriptures, but, they have freedom to believe as they do. I think such freedom is not just vouchesafed within our own Constitution, but also I would agree some allowance for such within the spiritual traditions of the Christian faith.

As I mentioned, I believe there is far more Scriptural evidence that does not support Pacifism, and instead counsels courage, being masculine, prepared, and ready to fight. There are also Scriptures that speak against the coward, the traitor, the man who would not fight to defend his community, his family, and his people. The Scriptures focus primarily on men, being dominant, and active--but also applauds and honours even women that stand up against tyranny, and eagerly and faithfully stand together with their men.

Search the Scriptures diligently. All I speak of is truth.

Thus, I sleep well at night, thankful to my Lord Christ, and to my armoury of weapons.

"The Lord teacheth my hands for war"

I hope that I have encouraged you, brother!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I'm going to offer a little unsolicited support to SHARK's position.  It really is about context.  In Luke 10:3-4, the Lord instructs his apostles

    3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
    4 Carry neither a purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.

In Luke 22:35-26, he tells them

    35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
    36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

At first glance, these say opposite things.  And note in the second he told his apostles to carry a sword.  The scriptures are full of things that might seem contradictory when interpreted without an understanding of how, where, and why they are supposed to be applied.  IMO understanding the scriptures requires reading ALL of them repeatedly until you have the whole picture in your mind.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 24, 2024, 03:40:18 AMI'm going to offer a little unsolicited support to SHARK's position.  It really is about context.  In Luke 10:3-4, the Lord instructs his apostles

    3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.
    4 Carry neither a purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.

In Luke 22:35-26, he tells them

    35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
    36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

At first glance, these say opposite things.  And note in the second he told his apostles to carry a sword.  The scriptures are full of things that might seem contradictory when interpreted without an understanding of how, where, and why they are supposed to be applied.  IMO understanding the scriptures requires reading ALL of them repeatedly until you have the whole picture in your mind.

Greetings!

Preach on, brother!

And thank you, my friend. I did not have my Bible next to my computer, for reference. Just going by memory from studying the Word!

I was having a conversation with a buddy just the other day. I exhorted him with my observation, that when I was in college, philosophy, and discussing "Higher Criticism" and the usual Atheist's and unbeliever's critiques about the faith, that I jumped even more deeper into the Word. I searched books of Biblical commentaries that discussed the questions, usually from the viewpoint of several different Biblical scholars and strong preachers. Searching the Scriptures deeper, just dig and dig, and *BOOM*--the answers are there. There's always some BS the critics like to slide through, some distraction or obfuscation, but keep digging, listen to good men of God, and study. The Scripture is trustworthy, and powerful. Like the Word says, All Scripture is God-breathed, and sharper than any two-edged sword. Good for salvation, reproof, correction, and righteousness in all things. The Scriptures are as a lamp unto our feet.

Again, I am blessed by your encouragement and good faith!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Rhymer88 on April 23, 2024, 09:39:57 AMFictional world-building has been around since Plato's Atlantis. For world-building in more modern times, Lovecraft and Howard have already been mentioned. E.R.Burroughs started even earlier, with his Barsoom setting (Under the Moons of Mars, 1912). In his quest to create a historicized mythology, Tolkien was, among other things, almost certainly influenced by the Old Testament.

WTF bro. Atlantis was real.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 24, 2024, 12:06:37 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 23, 2024, 04:37:01 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 23, 2024, 03:53:14 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 23, 2024, 03:11:48 PMActually, I think Tolkien's influence has trapped the fantasy genre in an uncreative rut where 99% of it is just Tolkien fanfiction with the serial numbers filled off. Dwarves, orcs, and elves inspired by Tolkien are everywhere in fantasy. Dark lords and heroic quests to save the world are a dime a dozen. A pseudo-medieval aesthetic inspired by Tolkien is the default.

As an old Studio C skit hilariously illustrated, the Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Harry Potter are the same story repackaged, despite having completely different aesthetics.

Ehhh, no, that recognition predates Studio C by a long time.  Joseph Campbell was talking about monomyth in the seventies.  It is, in fact, one reason why modern games and media mostly suck.  Because politics comes and goes, but the human condition never changes.  And the "progressives" want to assert that there is no human condition, nor is there anything within us other than the product of culture and politics.  And that is why they fail...

Campbell invented the monomyth structure by examining various myths and stitching together originally unrelated scenes into a vaguely coherent storytelling template (https://www.dappledthings.org/deep-down-things/8796/is-the-monomyth-a-myth), but it's not actually an accurate reflection of universal human psychology or storytelling (read the ATU fairy tale index for comparison). That's not to say that humans don't have universal psychological biases, we obviously do (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk3QsGzAjKI).

My criticism is unrelated to wokeness and is a pure criticism of writers becoming increasingly uncreative and just aping Tolkien. That's been a problem even before wokeness.

First, Campbell may have been the first to codify the concept, there has been a ton more scholarship that analyzes and explores the concept further.  So, despite the evidence-poor assertion of a couple of randos on the Internet (including the page you linked), Campbell's framework has been pretty useful overall.

Secondly, you've changed your argument on Tolkien several times in this thread.  First his tropes have trapped the writers that followed by establishing a pattern to be slavishly followed; then he's inventing evil overlord tropes that clearly predate him (Ming the Merciless?  There are many others...). Lucas was expressly and consciously  copying the serials of the 1930s and 40s, which predate LotR by decades.

Honestly, your whining about the lack of good writing in modern media due to Tolkien seems predicated on a cartoonishly simple generalization.  Somehow others must be copying Tolkien, and not copying who Tolkien copied.  As brilliant as he was, Tolkien was also heavily influenced by ideas that came before him, and those ideas were expressed in a lot of other media.  So perhaps they were all reacting to ideas that were much older?  Nah, they must just be copying him...

You're ascribing a lot more media literacy to modern authors than they actually possess. I don't know exactly when it happened, but the past few generations of writers have become increasingly ignorant of the histories of the genres. They don't read 1930s pulps, they read Tolkien and Lucas.

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 24, 2024, 12:25:19 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 23, 2024, 03:53:14 PMEhhh, no, that recognition predates Studio C by a long time.  Joseph Campbell was talking about monomyth in the seventies.  It is, in fact, one reason why modern games and media mostly suck.  Because politics comes and goes, but the human condition never changes.  And the "progressives" want to assert that there is no human condition, nor is there anything within us other than the product of culture and politics.  And that is why they fail...

Indeed:

Marx's Theory of Man and the World (https://newdiscourses.com/2022/10/many-faces-of-marxism/)

QuoteThe world of man — state, society — as Marx had it is the social structure that he creates for himself and that he, indeed, imprisons himself within. Man creates society and embodies that creation in the State, and the society, shaped by the State, in turn creates Man. Marx called the creation of society "praxis" and the creation of Man by society "the inversion of praxis." Praxis is theory-informed activism, so activism or "the work" done in light of Marxist Theory. It is the transforming activity done by Man on the world of man. The inversion of praxis is social conditioning. The society that Man has created for himself socially conditions him almost completely deterministically. Man is limited and thus psychically incarcerated by the limitations of his social conditioning through the inversion of praxis.

And this conversation just disappeared up its own ass.

Sorry, but Karl Marx and his teachings have nothing to do with how Tolkien was a major influence on early D&D. I give benefit of the doubt to young college socialists in the early 70s playing D&D and being horrified by the game's capitalist basis, but Tolkien was the author to read at that moment in time on college campuses if you liked fantasy.

Dragging Marx into this is like dragging Heinlein into this and declaring that Glory Road had less of an influence on early D&D than Stranger in a Strange Land.

To answer the original question, no, Tolkien was not to the detriment of the hobby. I agree with those who say that wokeists would insert themselves no matter what. Say, if elves were simply handled as spirits by Tolkien, and we used that in gaming, they would complain about why we don't have more African spirits or some such.

Quote from: Trond on April 24, 2024, 04:12:18 PMTo answer the original question, no, Tolkien was not to the detriment of the hobby. I agree with those who say that wokeists would insert themselves no matter what. Say, if elves were simply handled as spirits by Tolkien, and we used that in gaming, they would complain about why we don't have more African spirits or some such.

I think that's a fair critique. There's thousands and thousands of Middle Earth rip-offs, but only one Nyambe and it's not even supported anymore.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 24, 2024, 04:33:23 PMI think that's a fair critique. There's thousands and thousands of Middle Earth rip-offs, but only one Nyambe and it's not even supported anymore.

Then what the Hell is stopping you from writing one? Chop, chop. Put up or shut up.

Quote from: jeff37923 on April 24, 2024, 01:16:44 PMAnd this conversation just disappeared up its own ass.

Sorry, but Karl Marx and his teachings have nothing to do with how Tolkien was a major influence on early D&D. I give benefit of the doubt to young college socialists in the early 70s playing D&D and being horrified by the game's capitalist basis, but Tolkien was the author to read at that moment in time on college campuses if you liked fantasy.

Dragging Marx into this is like dragging Heinlein into this and declaring that Glory Road had less of an influence on early D&D than Stranger in a Strange Land.

Didn't say it did. Tangentially, I pointed out that Marxism agrees with Eirikrautha where "...the "progressives" want to assert that there is no human condition, nor is there anything within us other than the product of culture and politics."

Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on April 24, 2024, 05:50:17 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 24, 2024, 04:33:23 PMI think that's a fair critique. There's thousands and thousands of Middle Earth rip-offs, but only one Nyambe and it's not even supported anymore.

Then what the Hell is stopping you from writing one? Chop, chop. Put up or shut up.

I wouldn't know the first place to start

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 24, 2024, 04:33:23 PM

Quote from: Trond on April 24, 2024, 04:12:18 PMTo answer the original question, no, Tolkien was not to the detriment of the hobby. I agree with those who say that wokeists would insert themselves no matter what. Say, if elves were simply handled as spirits by Tolkien, and we used that in gaming, they would complain about why we don't have more African spirits or some such.

I think that's a fair critique. There's thousands and thousands of Middle Earth rip-offs, but only one Nyambe and it's not even supported anymore.

Well, Middle-Earth is popular, and with good reason if you ask me. But the problem is the tendency to demand "diversity"inserted everywhere. Tolkien-based products would be criticized for not including such "diverse" elements no matter what.

From what I remember, Tolkien saw Gondor as Avalon, or the England that he missed, with trees, etc. Mordor, on the other hand, is the modern world, with industralization, profit, greed, mechanization, and specialization. That must have been prompted by his experiences of WWI, when he fought in the trenches and where many of his friends died.

Sorry, I forgot to address something.

Yeah, being upset not!Europe isn't 100% black is ridiculous. Cheddar Man's people were suffering rickets and evolved white skin in order to survive. It's not racist to point this out.

If the woke hate white people and Europe, then write Afro Fantasy. It's really that simple. There's no shortage of African scholars who can explain it.

I'm complaining that the fantasy genre fetishizes a fake vision of medieval Europe at the expense of real historical cultures and the other continents.

It's ridiculous that an RTS like Godsworn is depicting a fantastical version of the Baltic crusade before any ttrpg has tried. RTS is orders of magnitude more difficult to create and fund.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 25, 2024, 10:52:26 AMIt's ridiculous that an RTS like Godsworn is depicting a fantastical version of the Baltic crusade before any ttrpg has tried.

Well Crusaders of the Amber Coast exists...

Quote from: WERDNA on April 25, 2024, 12:56:43 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 25, 2024, 10:52:26 AMIt's ridiculous that an RTS like Godsworn is depicting a fantastical version of the Baltic crusade before any ttrpg has tried.

Well Crusaders of the Amber Coast exists...

Never heard of that before. Huh

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 25, 2024, 02:40:42 PM

Quote from: WERDNA on April 25, 2024, 12:56:43 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 25, 2024, 10:52:26 AMIt's ridiculous that an RTS like Godsworn is depicting a fantastical version of the Baltic crusade before any ttrpg has tried.

Well Crusaders of the Amber Coast exists...

Never heard of that before. Huh

  BRP Supplement by Alephtar Games. Unfortunately out of print and not available in PDF, so like so much of their material, it's hard to find and getting harder. (I nabbed a copy at an FLGS Christmas sale a few years ago, but Stupor Mundi on the 13th century HRE was harder to find ... and I'm still hunting a copy of their nomads sourcebook, Wind on the Steppes.)

Here's a question: these Africa-based settings, do they sell? Do black people actually buy them in larger numbers than they otherwise would?

I'm actually interested in trying a setting like that once (I also bought the Pundit's book based on India, and a few others that are slightly different from the norm). But I also suspect that the situation is a bit similar to what Bill Burr points out about women's sports ("they don't buy any tickets!!!" :D  ).

Quote from: Trond on April 25, 2024, 09:22:19 PMHere's a question: these Africa-based settings, do they sell? Do black people actually buy them in larger numbers than they otherwise would?

I'm actually interested in trying a setting like that once (I also bought the Pundit's book based on India, and a few others that are slightly different from the norm). But I also suspect that the situation is a bit similar to what Bill Burr points out about women's sports ("they don't buy any tickets!!!" :D  ).

Anecdotally, I'm not really attracted to African settings myself. Except Ancient Egypt based settings if you count that.

Quote from: Trond on April 24, 2024, 04:12:18 PMTo answer the original question, no, Tolkien was not to the detriment of the hobby. I agree with those who say that wokeists would insert themselves no matter what. Say, if elves were simply handled as spirits by Tolkien, and we used that in gaming, they would complain about why we don't have more African spirits or some such.

Pretty much this. Remember. There is no limit at all that the woke can not hallucinate some utterly insane excuse for.

"Goblins are red. That means they re really Native Americans! And that means when you are killing goblins you are promoting real world GENOCIDE!!!"

Quote from: Omega on April 25, 2024, 10:56:26 PM

Quote from: Trond on April 24, 2024, 04:12:18 PMTo answer the original question, no, Tolkien was not to the detriment of the hobby. I agree with those who say that wokeists would insert themselves no matter what. Say, if elves were simply handled as spirits by Tolkien, and we used that in gaming, they would complain about why we don't have more African spirits or some such.

Pretty much this. Remember. There is no limit at all that the woke can not hallucinate some utterly insane excuse for.

"Goblins are red. That means they re really Native Americans! And that means when you are killing goblins you are promoting real world GENOCIDE!!!"

Indeed.

D&D 5e Trinkets are problematic! They exist but they are not all about ME!!!! ::)
The paper is trying to penetrate me and colonize my body! Damn you, monogamy! ::)
Descriptive box text in adventures are a function of violence inherent in the system! (Hmm, this might actually be true. ;) )

Quote from: Omega on April 25, 2024, 10:56:26 PM

Quote from: Trond on April 24, 2024, 04:12:18 PMTo answer the original question, no, Tolkien was not to the detriment of the hobby. I agree with those who say that wokeists would insert themselves no matter what. Say, if elves were simply handled as spirits by Tolkien, and we used that in gaming, they would complain about why we don't have more African spirits or some such.

Pretty much this. Remember. There is no limit at all that the woke can not hallucinate some utterly insane excuse for.

"Goblins are red. That means they re really Native Americans! And that means when you are killing goblins you are promoting real world GENOCIDE!!!"

They already did this, with all the cries of "greenskins" being a racial slur and such. I've even seen some people claim that Dragon Age Origins calling elves "knife ears" was also a racial slur.

Quote from: Cipher on April 26, 2024, 03:37:17 AM

Quote from: Omega on April 25, 2024, 10:56:26 PM

Quote from: Trond on April 24, 2024, 04:12:18 PMTo answer the original question, no, Tolkien was not to the detriment of the hobby. I agree with those who say that wokeists would insert themselves no matter what. Say, if elves were simply handled as spirits by Tolkien, and we used that in gaming, they would complain about why we don't have more African spirits or some such.

Pretty much this. Remember. There is no limit at all that the woke can not hallucinate some utterly insane excuse for.

"Goblins are red. That means they re really Native Americans! And that means when you are killing goblins you are promoting real world GENOCIDE!!!"

They already did this, with all the cries of "greenskins" being a racial slur and such. I've even seen some people claim that Dragon Age Origins calling elves "knife ears" was also a racial slur.

I mean, isn't' it? I thought the fantasy racism subplot in Dragon Age was one of it's most tiresome elements, but wasn't it supposed to be a clumsy analogy to real-world racism?

Also is that where that came from? Calling elves "knife-ears" has become a bit of a meme at this point, to the point where it even made it into that shitty Rings of Power show. I was wondering who came up with it first.

Quote from: Slambo on April 25, 2024, 09:58:38 PM

Quote from: Trond on April 25, 2024, 09:22:19 PMHere's a question: these Africa-based settings, do they sell? Do black people actually buy them in larger numbers than they otherwise would?

I'm actually interested in trying a setting like that once (I also bought the Pundit's book based on India, and a few others that are slightly different from the norm). But I also suspect that the situation is a bit similar to what Bill Burr points out about women's sports ("they don't buy any tickets!!!" :D  ).

Anecdotally, I'm not really attracted to African settings myself. Except Ancient Egypt based settings if you count that.

Well, Egypt does have a long history. Africa south of the Sahara is the opposite.

This is also part of the problem when people say that we should teach more history written by blacks or whatever. There's not a whole lot written even recently, and the proposition falls apart the moment we want something more ancient. "OK then, let's get some books based on prominent writers south of the Sahara from say 2000 years ago? Someone like Xenophon or Cicero maybe? ....No?"

Quote from: Trond on April 26, 2024, 10:07:59 AM

Quote from: Slambo on April 25, 2024, 09:58:38 PM

Quote from: Trond on April 25, 2024, 09:22:19 PMHere's a question: these Africa-based settings, do they sell? Do black people actually buy them in larger numbers than they otherwise would?

I'm actually interested in trying a setting like that once (I also bought the Pundit's book based on India, and a few others that are slightly different from the norm). But I also suspect that the situation is a bit similar to what Bill Burr points out about women's sports ("they don't buy any tickets!!!" :D  ).

Anecdotally, I'm not really attracted to African settings myself. Except Ancient Egypt based settings if you count that.

Well, Egypt does have a long history. Africa south of the Sahara is the opposite.

This is also part of the problem when people say that we should teach more history written by blacks or whatever. There's not a whole lot written even recently, and the proposition falls apart the moment we want something more ancient. "OK then, let's get some books based on prominent writers south of the Sahara from say 2000 years ago? Someone like Xenophon or Cicero maybe? ....No?"

On top of that, most of the market for RPGs, including among black people, is way more steeped in the European-Mediterranean cultural tradition than they are in the African. They're probably more comfortable roleplaying something like ancient Greece than they are ancient Africa.

This I assume is the reason there aren't more RPG settings based on historical China. There's plenty of source material, but it's not something the mostly Euro/American audience has much interest in.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 26, 2024, 10:45:14 AM

Quote from: Trond on April 26, 2024, 10:07:59 AM

Quote from: Slambo on April 25, 2024, 09:58:38 PM

Quote from: Trond on April 25, 2024, 09:22:19 PMHere's a question: these Africa-based settings, do they sell? Do black people actually buy them in larger numbers than they otherwise would?

I'm actually interested in trying a setting like that once (I also bought the Pundit's book based on India, and a few others that are slightly different from the norm). But I also suspect that the situation is a bit similar to what Bill Burr points out about women's sports ("they don't buy any tickets!!!" :D  ).

Anecdotally, I'm not really attracted to African settings myself. Except Ancient Egypt based settings if you count that.

Well, Egypt does have a long history. Africa south of the Sahara is the opposite.

This is also part of the problem when people say that we should teach more history written by blacks or whatever. There's not a whole lot written even recently, and the proposition falls apart the moment we want something more ancient. "OK then, let's get some books based on prominent writers south of the Sahara from say 2000 years ago? Someone like Xenophon or Cicero maybe? ....No?"

On top of that, most of the market for RPGs, including among black people, is way more steeped in the European-Mediterranean cultural tradition than they are in the African. They're probably more comfortable roleplaying something like ancient Greece than they are ancient Africa.

This I assume is the reason there aren't more RPG settings based on historical China. There's plenty of source material, but it's not something the mostly Euro/American audience has much interest in.

That and Asian settings get attacked pretty hard if they don't pay the troll toll to the sensitivity readers lol

Quote from: Cipher on April 26, 2024, 03:37:17 AMThey already did this, with all the cries of "greenskins" being a racial slur and such. I've even seen some people claim that Dragon Age Origins calling elves "knife ears" was also a racial slur.

Yet they can call anyone else they target some sort of -ist or -phobe.
Its only wrong when someone else does it.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 26, 2024, 08:10:55 AMAlso is that where that came from? Calling elves "knife-ears" has become a bit of a meme at this point, to the point where it even made it into that shitty Rings of Power show. I was wondering who came up with it first.

I think its older than Dragon Age. But not sure when. I suspect it originated in Warhammer.

Quote from: Insane Nerd Ramblings on April 22, 2024, 08:39:07 PMhe only creatures that probably were inherently evil were Ungoliant and her spawn (Shelob, etc).

Even Ungoliant's a bit ambiguous as it's unclear if she is even apart of Arda and Eru's design or if she is some sort of byproduct of Malkor's corruption of reality.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on April 26, 2024, 07:20:52 PMEven Ungoliant's a bit ambiguous as it's unclear if she is even apart of Arda and Eru's design or if she is some sort of byproduct of Malkor's corruption of reality.

The best theory is that she and Tom Bombadil were creations of The Music of the Ainur, specifically Ungoliant is the Discord of Melkor. Probably also the Nameless Things that Gandalf encountered below Moria while chasing Durin's Bane were of the same sort. Also The Watcher in the Water in the lake created by damming the Sirranon as well. Tom would be The Music given form,

Eurofantasy is oversaturated, trite and stale now. It's time for Afrofantasy and Sinofantasy to take over. Anyone who doesn't want that is a white supremacist who needs education. /sarcasm

Quote from: SHARK on April 24, 2024, 01:28:10 AMI hope that I have encouraged you, brother!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I find your response and exhortation heartening, SHARK, and thank you for it.

Without giving us the right to defend ourselves and our loved ones God becomes a moral monster, and I'm happy to meet someone who sees a Christian way to avoid that horrible conclusion.

What Bible version do you use? Whom do you consult for Scriptural advice?

Neoplatonist1

Quote from: SHARK on April 23, 2024, 05:32:16 PM

Quote from: Brad on April 23, 2024, 12:35:52 PMAs I am wont to say whenever these sorts of situations manifest, "It's nothing a shotgun wouldn't fix." Kill all the communists and you fix 99% of the problem. Tolkien isn't to blame for anything other than being an excellent writer who just so happened to write a British-inspired myth.

Greetings!

Damn right, Brad! I have been saying this forever. Gradually, more and more Americans are coming around to embracing this conclusion. Still, though, there are far too many people that naively believe that somehow, it is better and good to tolerate these terrible people within our communities. As one aspect of culture after another becomes corrupted and destroyed by the Communists, people are beginning to cry and worry about it. These nice, naive sheep though seem to be too stupid to realise that it might be too late, and America is fucked. The Communists have a chance to achieve total victory because too many Americans were passive, naive, and weak. More eager to hold onto cherished fantasies from days long gone than to actually face the truth and grapple with the reality that is destroying everything that they value right in front of them.

The Communists and other PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL morons have declared that Tolkien is racist, and Misogynist. Ergo, he must also then be a Hu-White Supremacist. *Rolls eyes* I wish I was making this up, but it is very real. I've read that these Liberal morons actually have said this kind of stuff about Tolkien.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

SHARK, the problem the Wokists exploit here is that seeing one's kind reflected on the Screen or in Print is a Good Thing. Tolkien presents his Secondary World drawing on principles from European (British) civilization, tradition, religion and myth. His story is (implicitly) Christian, and White and Male, because such is the main and traditional driver of European history.

Because the latter-day West's primary commandment is "ontological security!" wherein freedom from harm is the greatest good, the Wokists seize on the idea that all groups not prominently represented (or represented at all) in Tolkien are thus being deprived of their own Good, and so harmed.

Since the West is the best civilization ever created, in principle, faults and warts aside, it behooves us to preserve that which has traditionally driven its history. Preserving Tolkien is part of this, as it puts Christians-before-Christ, European racial stock, and heroic Masculinity into center stage.

Without this, the West, including America as its best and last defense against all external (Chinese) and internal (Islam, Wokism) threats, will crumple into multicultural confusion and demoralization, which the Oligarchal Blob seeks as a method of control.

It's true that Tolkien's viewpoint deprives Blacks, Women, Homosexuals, etc. of representational Goods. University-trained Leftists/Wokists therefore can't help but perceive Tolkien as racist and misogynist, when he is writing about White Traditionalist societies where racial mixtures are vanishingly rare, homosexuals unmentioned, and traditional sex roles are almost universal.

But this is a necessary feature of the West. The Wokists want to deface 20,000 years of European history and replace it with a Communist Year Zero. Anyone with a good heart can enjoy and even treasure Tolkien, but it takes a resentful, envious, and destructive heart to try to tear Tolkien down because he wrote a European myth.

The stumbling block for us, is that the Wokists want everything to be political, and so long as we play like it's not,  they win. Not just traditional representation on the Screen and Print is a Good, but the essence of Middle Earth is itself a Good, a sublime Good, and that means that Government Policies that move the West further from the traditions and axioms embedded in authors such as Tolkien, are destroying "all that is green and good in the world" by replacing it with the Wokist slag and rubble that you and I see and warn others about.

Tell a man he is something long enough, he starts to believe it. At this point in the West's intended and ongoing decline, if your heroes aren't called White Supremacists and Sexists, you're not trying hard enough. And if you're not trying to be like your heroes, then they aren't really your heroes. Tolkien wouldn't like being called what the Wokists call him, but Tolkien didn't live to see what we have lived to see, with much worse to come if we spend our energies peeling off labels rather than fighting for the Western tradition.

Neoplatonist1

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on April 25, 2024, 10:52:26 AMIf the woke hate white people and Europe, then write Afro Fantasy. It's really that simple. There's no shortage of African scholars who can explain it.

Writing something like that would be tip-toeing through a minefield now.  You couldn't get away with having one white guy write it.  That would be problematic appropriation.  You would need a black writer and at least one black diversity kommisar.  You would probably get anachronisms like Pan-Africanism or outright nonsense like Afrocentrism shoved in there.  It would probably have to revolve around current year talking points and how white people are bad.
 It would be implausibly utopian like Coyote & Crow because we can't put in anything that makes black people look bad even if it's a common human problem. You would certainly have to get rid of the slave trade in fantasy Africa.  You would be subject to intense scrutiny and probably accusations of racism no matter what you did.   

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 27, 2024, 10:46:47 PM

Quote from: SHARK on April 24, 2024, 01:28:10 AMI hope that I have encouraged you, brother!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I find your response and exhortation heartening, SHARK, and thank you for it.

Without giving us the right to defend ourselves and our loved ones God becomes a moral monster, and I'm happy to meet someone who sees a Christian way to avoid that horrible conclusion.

What Bible version do you use? Whom do you consult for Scriptural advice?

Neoplatonist1

Greetings!

You are very welcome, brother! I am always glad to help! As for Scriptural advice and instruction, I would absolutely recommend Pastor John MacArthur, and Pastor J. Vernon Mcgee. I have included YouTube videos of both men below. I have found that the doctrinal instruction and wisdom provided by Mcgee and MacArthur through the years have been rock solid in providing a powerful foundation that stands the test of time, and crushes all of the world's arguments, temptations, and fickle, spiritual fads so commonly passed about by one flavour of charlatan after another. Listen to these Godly men's teachings, read their books, and study God's Word. 
As for the Bible, I strongly prefer the King James Bible. The Common Man's King James Bible is my favourite. (By Hoffman)
For additional study, you can't go wrong with the MacArthur Study Bible. (NKJV).

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


Pastor John MacArthur

Pastor J. Vernon Mcgee

Does anyone find it ironic that is was the Left during the late 60s into the 70s that was a champion of Tolkien's works? The "Frodo Lives!" slogan spry-painted on the walls of many college campuses by anti-establishment students is well known.

Today? Quite the opposite.

Now his works are denigrated by left-wing post-modernist pseudo-intellectuals.

Personally, I think it comes down to jealousy.

Those left-wing ass hats wish they had a 10th of the creativity Tolkien, Vance, Heinlein, and others had. Their short cut to creativity is the post-modernist route, which is a lazy man's way. All you're doing is taking all of the age old tropes of story-telling and reversing it all. That's it. Nothing more.

It's not creative. It's a stupid person's way thinking they're clever, which is pathetic.

Because the worst kind of stupid is the guy who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room, and everyone else knows he's as dumb as a sack of hammers.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 26, 2024, 10:45:14 AM

Quote from: Trond on April 26, 2024, 10:07:59 AM

Quote from: Slambo on April 25, 2024, 09:58:38 PM

Quote from: Trond on April 25, 2024, 09:22:19 PMHere's a question: these Africa-based settings, do they sell? Do black people actually buy them in larger numbers than they otherwise would?

I'm actually interested in trying a setting like that once (I also bought the Pundit's book based on India, and a few others that are slightly different from the norm). But I also suspect that the situation is a bit similar to what Bill Burr points out about women's sports ("they don't buy any tickets!!!" :D  ).

Anecdotally, I'm not really attracted to African settings myself. Except Ancient Egypt based settings if you count that.

Well, Egypt does have a long history. Africa south of the Sahara is the opposite.

This is also part of the problem when people say that we should teach more history written by blacks or whatever. There's not a whole lot written even recently, and the proposition falls apart the moment we want something more ancient. "OK then, let's get some books based on prominent writers south of the Sahara from say 2000 years ago? Someone like Xenophon or Cicero maybe? ....No?"

On top of that, most of the market for RPGs, including among black people, is way more steeped in the European-Mediterranean cultural tradition than they are in the African. They're probably more comfortable roleplaying something like ancient Greece than they are ancient Africa.

This I assume is the reason there aren't more RPG settings based on historical China. There's plenty of source material, but it's not something the mostly Euro/American audience has much interest in.

Interestingly, Japan's top ttrpg, Sword World, has a more or less European setting and in the rule book for Sword World 2.5 it expressly says that players should choose western-sounding names for their characters.

Quote from: blackstone on April 29, 2024, 08:02:42 AMDoes anyone find it ironic that is was the Left during the late 60s into the 70s that was a champion of Tolkien's works? The "Frodo Lives!" slogan spry-painted on the walls of many college campuses by anti-establishment students is well known.

Today? Quite the opposite.

Now his works are denigrated by left-wing post-modernist pseudo-intellectuals.

Personally, I think it comes down to jealousy.

Those left-wing ass hats wish they had a 10th of the creativity Tolkien, Vance, Heinlein, and others had. Their short cut to creativity is the post-modernist route, which is a lazy man's way. All you're doing is taking all of the age old tropes of story-telling and reversing it all. That's it. Nothing more.

It's not creative. It's a stupid person's way thinking they're clever, which is pathetic.

Because the worst kind of stupid is the guy who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room, and everyone else knows he's as dumb as a sack of hammers.

Both sides should go back to reasons why Tolkien wrote the books. From what I remember, he specialized in medieval studies and wanted children to read LOTR so that when they grew up they would then read and appreciate Beowulf and others. Meanwhile, he became critical of industrialization and war because of what he experienced, like trench warfare and many of his friends dying, and then concerns over consumerism and deforestation, which might explain why he depicted them through Mordor. Finally, even with that he knew that Avalon would never return, which is why he or his estate reluctantly licensed the work to producers, publishers, and merchandisers.

I think what happened was that those who appreciated LOTR in the 1960s were young adults, which meant that they should have moved on to medieval literature following Tolkien's beliefs but didn't because they were the first products of a television culture, which in turn is part of a consumer society. Later, their children, who grew up with in the same society and spoiled by all sorts of consumer goods (including, ironically, movies, toys, etc., about LOTR) began to react negatively to the same society, but because they could not imagine living in anything outside it, remained in it.

Quote from: blackstone on April 29, 2024, 08:02:42 AMDoes anyone find it ironic that is was the Left during the late 60s into the 70s that was a champion of Tolkien's works? The "Frodo Lives!" slogan spry-painted on the walls of many college campuses by anti-establishment students is well known.

Today? Quite the opposite.

That is because the moral busybodies are like parasites and will jump from one host to the next, always targeting whomever they repressed and championing them now.

Quote from: Omega on May 01, 2024, 03:01:30 AM

Quote from: blackstone on April 29, 2024, 08:02:42 AMDoes anyone find it ironic that is was the Left during the late 60s into the 70s that was a champion of Tolkien's works? The "Frodo Lives!" slogan spry-painted on the walls of many college campuses by anti-establishment students is well known.

Today? Quite the opposite.

That is because the moral busybodies are like parasites and will jump from one host to the next, always targeting whomever they repressed and championing them now.

Could you give some more examples of this process?

Quote from: ralfy on April 30, 2024, 11:42:35 PM

Quote from: blackstone on April 29, 2024, 08:02:42 AMDoes anyone find it ironic that is was the Left during the late 60s into the 70s that was a champion of Tolkien's works? The "Frodo Lives!" slogan spry-painted on the walls of many college campuses by anti-establishment students is well known.

Today? Quite the opposite.

Now his works are denigrated by left-wing post-modernist pseudo-intellectuals.

Personally, I think it comes down to jealousy.

Those left-wing ass hats wish they had a 10th of the creativity Tolkien, Vance, Heinlein, and others had. Their short cut to creativity is the post-modernist route, which is a lazy man's way. All you're doing is taking all of the age old tropes of story-telling and reversing it all. That's it. Nothing more.

It's not creative. It's a stupid person's way thinking they're clever, which is pathetic.

Because the worst kind of stupid is the guy who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room, and everyone else knows he's as dumb as a sack of hammers.

Both sides should go back to reasons why Tolkien wrote the books. From what I remember, he specialized in medieval studies and wanted children to read LOTR so that when they grew up they would then read and appreciate Beowulf and others. Meanwhile, he became critical of industrialization and war because of what he experienced, like trench warfare and many of his friends dying, and then concerns over consumerism and deforestation, which might explain why he depicted them through Mordor. Finally, even with that he knew that Avalon would never return, which is why he or his estate reluctantly licensed the work to producers, publishers, and merchandisers.

I think what happened was that those who appreciated LOTR in the 1960s were young adults, which meant that they should have moved on to medieval literature following Tolkien's beliefs but didn't because they were the first products of a television culture, which in turn is part of a consumer society. Later, their children, who grew up with in the same society and spoiled by all sorts of consumer goods (including, ironically, movies, toys, etc., about LOTR) began to react negatively to the same society, but because they could not imagine living in anything outside it, remained in it.

Careful, you sound like you're advocating communism there. /s

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on May 01, 2024, 02:29:33 PM

Quote from: Omega on May 01, 2024, 03:01:30 AM

Quote from: blackstone on April 29, 2024, 08:02:42 AMDoes anyone find it ironic that is was the Left during the late 60s into the 70s that was a champion of Tolkien's works? The "Frodo Lives!" slogan spry-painted on the walls of many college campuses by anti-establishment students is well known.

Today? Quite the opposite.

That is because the moral busybodies are like parasites and will jump from one host to the next, always targeting whomever they repressed and championing them now.

Could you give some more examples of this process?

Every wave of this mental disease sweeps through a series of "championing" something and take it upon themselves to speak for them. Eventually the pendulum swings and the opposing side starts actually doing something positive instead of just fermenting hatred. And the woke jump ship and start the process of infiltration and takeover all over again. The left and right have flipped over and over With what was the right becoming the new left and the old left becoming the new right. Rinse-repeat every 20 years ad nausium. We are already seeing a shift in prep for the 2030 wave and god only knows how bad that will be considering how damaging this wave has been.